85 Wash. 2d 685 - Memel v. Reimer’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably 124 Wash. 2d 121 - Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Society (1994), 86 Wash. 2d 439 - Taskett v. King Broadcasting Co. (1976)
9 federal appellate · 31 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on 85 Wash. 2d 151 - Miller v. Kennedy · 62 Wash. 2d 777 - Potts v. Amis · 75 Wash. 2d 401 - Moore v. Mayfair Tavern, Inc. · 16 Wash. 2d 424 - Christensen v. Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. · 71 Wash. 2d 325 - Miniken v. Carr
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to licensees by a condition on the land if, but only if, (a) the possessor knows or has reason to know of the condition and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such licensees, and should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, and (b) he fails to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to warn the licensees of the condition and the risk involved, and (c) the licensees do not know or have reason to know of the condition and the risk involved.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“We are not requiring that the occupier either prepare a safe place, or that he [or she] affirmatively seek out and discover hidden dangers. What we do impose is a duty to exercise reasonable care where there is a known dangerous condition on the property and the occupier can reasonably anticipate that [the] licensee will not discover or realize the risks. Under these circumstances, the landowner can fulfill his [or her] duty by either making the condition safe or by warning [the] licensee of the condition and its inherent risks.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he purpose of the rule requiring a party to except [to instructions] . . . is to put upon counsel the duty to use his best efforts to keep a trial free from error, and to this end to give the court an adequate statement of his position upon all matters upon which he asks the court to make a ruling. If a trial court then rejects the contention, there may be a just grievance for which an appeal is the only remedy; but an appeal is not a device for trying out new theories or improving on the trial below.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.